Does having had Covid count as being vaccinated?

[Falcor]

Just that really. For non uk travellers coming over for a short trip?

Thank you beforehand

That’s not what I asked. I said how can they prove they’re immune? The vaccine doesn’t guarantee immunity - quite clearly.

You’ve gone off on a bit of a tangent. I’ve said several times on this thread that it’s great that we have the vaccine to reduce severity in people at risk and that it makes more sense for people to be vaccinated. All I’m arguing is that people who have immunity after infection should be allowed to enter places because they are potentially less of a risk to others than a vaccinated person. I’m not sure how that is ‘spreading misinformation’ or ‘committing manslaughter’

for those at risk* people to be vaccinated.

But the reality is that natural infection is not proven to be perfect, and yes some may have better but not all, and the biggest problem is how do you prove it?
And I've already said, if you want natural immunity to be counted as same as vaccine immunity, you have made your priority wrong. We don't decide what the gov decide. Me saying yeah I agree with you(I don't) won't make any difference in your life.

The data is clear, reinfection happens. Vaccinated people do get infected less. Unvaccinated people get more seriously ill compared to vaccinated people, and most recently, the breakthrough infection happens when there are unvaccinated people around.

You choose not to get vaccinated, a free vaccine, safer than getting infected with covid, so it's up to you to prove you are safe to the people who has chosen to be vaccinated to be around you.

No. Obviously.

But the reality is that natural infection is not proven to be perfect, and yes some may have better but not all, and the biggest problem is how do you prove it?

But the reality is that the vaccine is nowhere near perfect as far as preventing infection goes. Incidence of breakthrough infections is much higher than incidence of reinfection. Despite this, vaccinated people aren’t required to ‘prove’ that they’re immune.

And just a reminder that for the majority of young healthy people COVID is a mild/asymptomatic disease so it really isn’t as simple as ‘unvaccinated get more ill than vaccinated’. A vaccinated 60 year old is still more at risk than an unvaccinated 30 year old.

A vaccinated 60 year old is still more at risk than an unvaccinated 30 year old.

Sigh.

No one is debating this but it's a pointless comment. Age is not a modifiable risk factor.

On average a vaccinated 30 year old is less at risk that an unvaccinated 30 year old.

You're comparing apples and oranges to try and imply vaccination is not necessary in this age group @bumbleymummy

I would introduce the place that may put you into perspective, @bumbleymummy Those people saying natural immunity is better than vaccine dying. It's heartbreaking, it can be prevented.

www.reddit.com/r/HermanCainAward/

UK is doing ok now, due to early vaccination rate. But like there were healthy 15 years old died from covid, you can never guarantee they are all safe. On the other hand, you can always guarantee the rate of death or serious illness is always rarer by vaccine than natural infection.

Like I said million times, you can choose not to get vaccinated yourself, but just don't bring anyone down with you.

Nope, just replying to the previous poster’s comment, olly.

@Megistotherium not bringing anyone anywhere. I’m sorry if you find it disturbing that natural infection is durable, as the studies have found. I actually find it a positive thing. And again, it is great that we have the vaccine as an option. People are allowed to make decisions in relation to their own health though. The point here is that people who are immune after infection should be allowed entry to places - they are potentially less of a risk to others. ‘Vaccine-only’ makes no sense for all the reasons I’ve stated in my previous posts. You do seem to have gone off on a bit of a tangent from that though.

Like I said, if you want the natural immunity to be taken same as vaccine immunity, posting same thing again and again on MN won't help you. You need to work on that issue to be recognised by the gov, not us.

I have no issue with natural immunity by infection to be considered similar to vaccine immunity if you can prove it, but like I said before, it's up to you to prove or get it recognised, when there are easier solution for everyone, for free.

But tbh, you have no right to talk about natural immunity, since you can even state or confirm you have natural immunity in the first place.
I can understand the people who had covid saying it wasn't too bad, but how can you say it's not too bad, when you haven't even had it? And some people have it quite bad, or die.

You really can't compare what's happening in other countries, since some countries have so many different factors. I have never gone off on a bit of tangent. My opinion hasn't changed.

And again, I think scientific studies irt severity of infection and duration of natural immunity are far more reliable and informative than random people on MN saying that they had it mildly or that they’re immune after 9/12/18 months. So I’m going to stick to them, thanks. Have a nice night.

bumbleymummy, I think people couldn't careless about what you are saying on MN.

Like I said, there's no point in trying to convince people on MN that natural immunity is better than vaccine immunity. We can all see the data ourselves.
If you want to make your life easier, than your energy is better spent convincing the gov to recognise natural immunity as an alternative to vaccine immunity than repeating the same old thing over and over again, to be discredited by different people every time.

You think that people on MN have ‘discredited’ the papers from nature, nejm and the findings from hiqa?

Ok…

And I’ll continue to argue on MN against people who insist than vaccine passports make any sense, thanks. It’s not the only place I argue against them though :)

No, not the papers, you.
Why did you get deleted? Is it because you misinformed? I can't think of you as swearer, so I don't think you were deleted for bad language or swearing.

No idea. Reading back it was the post where I asked you how vaccinated people can prove they’re immune because we know that the vaccine doesn’t guarantee immunity. Nothing controversial there.

Not sure how you think I’ve been ‘discredited’ - they aren’t my papers. I’ve just quoted from them and their findings still stand. :)

@bumbleymummy

You think that people on MN have ‘discredited’ the papers from nature, nejm and the findings from hiqa?

Ok…

And I’ll continue to argue on MN against people who insist than vaccine passports make any sense, thanks. It’s not the only place I argue against them though :)

😂 People didn't discredit the papers just your interpretation of what they presented.

The papers show natural immunity but also that it decreases and I simply stated what was included in one of them questioning sample size and robustness of methodology which generally is what gets questioned in the peer review stage prior to publication BTW.

Small sample size does pose issues it's known within the scientific community. To have a very robust and clear outcome you need large datasets so that its clearer.

You seem to give the impression that natural immunity is a magic wand which lasts forever and then you try to cherry pick from scientific studies to back it up because your pissed off about vaccine passports!

the studies state show decreases in natural immunity from 6 months and other studies which you seem to disregard show lower protection than vaccination.

You also seem to be a bit under the impression that only old or at risk get very sick, unfortunately what's on paper risk wise doesn't equate into the pot luck nature of covid. I'm mid 30s and was very unwell I counted as a moderate case, hypoxic and put on steroids. I'm a size 10, walked 15+ miles a week, paddleboarded 8 miles a week as well as cycling and regular yoga. My only underlying condition was very mild asthma so mild in fact my inhalers were out of date as I hadn't needed them in 9+ months. Its great if you only got a mild case but its completely random for some!

I don't care what other people do but as said previously it's your choice to make which means weighing up all aspects and that includes the ability to freely travel or attending events.
Given that EU only accepts natural immunity for a maximum of 9 months (and some within it is less) what's your plan going to be after that???? Moan that they are being unfair?!

@Scottishskifun yes, I’m aware of what is involved in peer review, thanks. :) and posting laughing emojis everywhere doesn’t really discredit anyone except yourself tbh.

There is nothing wrong with my interpretation of the papers. As I’ve already pointed out, the first document was used to inform a decision to extend presumptive immunity to 9 months.

If you read back over my posts you will see that they support exactly what I’ve written - that natural immunity is durable, reinfection is rare and lasts longer than protection from infection from the vaccine which wanes significantly from 4 months on. There is a reason why we’re offering boosters you know.

No, I haven’t suggested it lasts forever. We don’t have the evidence to support that yet. But, as shown in the studies above, there are promising signs that it will be long lasting. This is a good thing, don’t you think?

No, I don’t think that only old and sick people are at risk. They are the most at risk though and that is why it is good that we have a vaccine that can reduce their risk of serious illness. (And for anyone else who wants it)

I would imagine that if more evidence emerges supporting the durability of natural infection that the guidelines will be updated again. Perhaps the U.K. will catch up at that point.

@bumbleymummy emojis doesn't discredit me at all I just find it amusing your narrative which the studies you post haven't demonstrated that it doesn't start decreasing at the 6-9 month point for some.

It would be great if natural immunity is longer lasting but given they are showing there is a decrease how to you propose that it's used as proof?!
Regular antibody testing at what cost?!
After the 6-9 month period that switches from a simple blood droplet test to more complex examination for memory immune cells and at greater costs.
I'm taking part in an antibody research study in the UK as part of having covid and long covid but I also don't presume having those natural antibodies will prevent a similar level illness in the future, I know that vaccination does by the tens of thousands of participants involved in studies and millions vaccinated. You seem to rubbish/ignore the zoe app research...... Which is also one of the largest running self reporting study apps in the UK and has also found additional symptoms now adapted by governments.

You state its discrimination on travel it's not as said multiple times it's your choice govts apply a risk based approach to these things. The lower risk is vaccination that's why its required for travel.

@Scottishskifun

perhaps you’re confused about what I have actually said if you don’t think the studies I’ve linked to support it? I have not said that immunity never wanes. We don’t have the evidence to support that yet. In all my posts I stated that the findings were ‘in the majority’, not ‘all’. My point was that it is more durable for protection against infection in the majority (9-12 months vs 4-6 months). And that it should therefore be recognised as proof of immunity/protection irt entry to certain venues. I’ve spelt this out several times now so I’m really not sure why you aren’t getting it.

We accept the vaccine as ‘proof’ and we know that it isn’t as effective at preventing infection/transmission as it is at preventing serious illness. If we know that previous infection results in durable immunity in the majority (due to multiple studies) and that they are not a risk to others, why do you expect more proof for that than the vaccinated person?

I already said above, as time goes on and more studies come out irt durability of immunity after infection, the guidelines for presumptive immunity can/should be updated.

As pointed out in the several posts above, and supported by the links, the vaccine does not guarantee that a person is ‘lower risk’ compared to a previously infected person. Tbh the safest option irt reducing spread would be to require everyone to provide a negative test, regardless of vaccine status.

@bumbleymummy

You think that people on MN have ‘discredited’ the papers from nature, nejm and the findings from hiqa?

Ok…

And I’ll continue to argue on MN against people who insist than vaccine passports make any sense, thanks. It’s not the only place I argue against them though :)

None of the papers you link recommend that people don't need to be vaccinated after infection

And to follow up - the issue isn't with the quality of the papers so no one is trying to "discredit" them, it's your interpretaion (or sometimes how you choose to present a single paper instead of the full picture) which is the issus.

Good science can always be used to mislead @bumbleymummy

I'm losing track a bit here. A positive PCR entitles you to an NHS covid pass for 180 days. Are you saying that this should be extended?

That was to @bumbleymummy

@bumbleymummy and you ignored a recent study which shows that natural immunity offers less protection than vaccination....
I do get it, I also get that you feel aggrieved that your discounted from events and travel because of a choice you made. Your opinion is just that, just as mine is whilst govt examines data and given we have had fingers burnt before with new variant importation I don't disagree with them taking a more cautious approach with not accepting natural immunity especially for travel!

The studies on natural immunity are still much much lower data sets compared with vaccination studies ergo its completely normal to say no there isn't enough proof to do that but there is based on vaccination.
The immunity resistance to not catching covid again has also been shown to be different depending on which variant people contracted with the original variant much lower natural antibody protection against re-infection with delta compared to if someone had alpha and again someone had delta variant they are currently in the greatest protection range. Given most people will not know which variant they had (some can make a educated guess based on time frame) there is no way to prove that natural immunity is sufficient against the latest variant.

You can stay on your soap box as long as you want, it's not going to change travel arrangements in the next year minimum. So live with the decision you made! As my mum says you made your bed so lie in it!

@ollyollyoxenfree
“ None of the papers you link recommend that people don't need to be vaccinated after infection”

I didn’t say that they did. I’m arguing that protection after infection is durable and should be recognised for entry to certain venues.

@Reallybadidea some places have extended it to 9 months. If more evidence comes out showing even longer immunity after infection then yes, I think it should be extended further.

@Scottishskifun so does that mean you’re ‘ignoring’ all the studies that show durable immunity after infection, including a report which resulted in a recommendation to extend presumptive immunity, because one study from Zoe has showed otherwise? Fair enough.

A ‘more cautious approach’ would be to require everyone to test, not exempt people just because they’ve had a vaccine when we know it isn’t as effective at preventing infection.

Yes, I know you’re happy enough with this because you’ve had your vaccine and can travel but some of us prefer restrictions and laws to be based on data and facts, not politics.

@bumbleymummy the studies show decreasing immunity not durable, durable indicates stable not decrease.
I am ignoring your interpretation of the studies not the studies themselves.
I also like several studies which show that the best long term protection is one where you have BOTH natural immunity and the vaccination.

You seem to want the govt to back up your stance well they are unlikely to do so and they make their own decision based on scientific advisors just as the US does and the NZ does!

You can easily get a vaccine if you wish it's not like its being withheld from you or is a crazy cost. Like I say live by the choice you made!